[Ray!]

The debate on the Global Warming Insanity post is just going around in circles debating whether global warming is real and man made or not. Let's for a start assume that it is real and man made, like the government and a number here believe, then would those who do believe in it, please answer the following questions:

1. What measures should Australia adopt in order to stop global warming?

2. What will be the effect of those measures on global warming?

3. What will be the cost be to Australia and Australians by implementing those measures?

This is really important for everyone to understand, as the issue of whether global warming/climate change is real, man made or not, is somewhat irrelevant, it's those three questions and the answers that are the most important things to understand and the effects that they will have on you.

Cheers

Ray

 

[ethanboris]

i'll just call capitan planet

 

[GUTourer]

Ray

1. fark all
2. fark all
3. farkin HEAPS

 

[Grahame]

Andrew Bolt, what have you done with Ray?

I'm calling the cops, I think there's been a kidnapping

 

[ITS A FORD NOT A NISSAN]

How to save the planet? ... the planet doesnt need saving , it isnt going anywhere

1/ kill all humans

2/ all humans dead

3/war ............ then a peacefull planet will remain

 

[Ray!]

I note deathly silence from the Believers.

Cheers

Ray

 

[ITS A FORD NOT A NISSAN]

what the government is doing

1/forcing people to cut back on energy consumption by increasing prices to the point where people cant afford it any more, ( cause if people just reduced there consumption the government would loose out on there cash)

2/ nothing , just makes the government look better

3/wont affect the government as they still get there cash but the aussies will be lighter in there back pocket, the economy will slow as people cant afford to spend as much....


what should we do

1/be world leaders in in renewable energy, solar, water storage (Hydro electric etc),

2/ probly nothing but it would look impressive

3/an absolute crap load

 

[GUTourer]

What *****s me to tears is the biggest polluters that live on the same freakin planet as us basically say fark off to reducing their emissions. So I fear "our" contribution read "tax grab" will in actual fact drive business away from this country and place an ever more burdening strain on middle class australia and actually do 5/8ths of fark all to lower CO2 emissions as we really don't contribute that much to the overall scheme of things. Don't kid yourselves here guys, it will be middle class australia that pays, it always does. Lower income brackets will receive help and big earners rarely pay. Middle class has become the working poor in this nation.

We are already one of the highest taxed, developed countries in the world. And personally I'm sick to death of our politicians putting us up for "white knight" awards in the eyes of the rest of the world. The "look at me, look at me" attitude we have to eek out some pitiful recognition from the rest of the world passing it off as being progressive and positive all the while most countries view our country as a farking joke.

 

[davess]

So you don't believe in man made climate change, that's fair. Surely though the endless plundering of the planet's resources and consumption of the available fossil fuels has to become some kind of detriment to the environment right? And what about some of the more "fun" aspects of fossil fuel harvesting like Coal Seam Gas and "fracking" which is starting to show evidence of harmful chemicals entering the water table. Coal Seam Methane Gas - Fact Sheet NSW - Lock the Gate Alliance Inc What do we do when we make an area uninhabitable, or untenable for agriculture? In an older thread on this forum you and Greame were bemoaning the death of a sand dune area in NSW because of mining, isn't that the same thing the environmental camp are speaking about?

To think not more than a century and a half ago people with a very similar ideology were hell bent on "harvesting" the sea of every whale and seal they could get their hands on for oil and other products. Back then I'm sure there were plenty of naysayers who thought we could do no harm to the natural order by doing this.

Ok so nearly every taxpayer is not entirely sold on the idea of a carbon tax, it means we pay more everywhere from groceries to the bowser. Surely though it's high time to start looking at better, smarter ways of generating the energy we need to fuel our current needs as a society? Or perhaps we need to look at better management of the energy we use, we are as a society far too wasteful of the resources that we have on hand. I keep thinking of my son, what kind of planet are we going to leave behind? What's going to be there for the next generation? It's then that I start thinking ok, what can I do?

As a whole society we need to start getting smarter, we can't work any harder so we need to work more efficiently. We need to stop using old technology and ideas and start adopting new ones, we Australia as a land and people are the best placed county on the planet for the development and implementation of sustainable energy. Vast tracts of the outback receive solar energy that if harvested could dwarf output of coal, wave and tidal energy harvesting could also supply coastal Australia with plentiful energy. Wind farming (despite the Orange bellied Parrot, and Country Liberals) could supply (and does to some extent) a large portion of our requirements.

Maybe I'm being naive in thinking we could do better, but I do.

 

[Ray!]

So you don't believe in man made climate change, etc

Wrong debate. I'm saying that we assume everything that the Believers are suggesting is in fact true. In that case, let's stay on track and answer the three questions I have asked.

Cheers

Ray

 

[truckster]

What *****s me to tears is the biggest polluters that live on the same freakin planet as us basically say fark off to reducing their emissions.

Bingo. but we will be LEADERS in going broke.

And personally I'm sick to death of our politicians putting us up for "white knight" awards in the eyes of the rest of the world.

GOLD!!!! Specially when they just laugh at us..

 

[bloke83]

To save the planet:

a) the planets issue lies with humans.
b) we are going to exhaust our fossil fuels regardless of what anyone says.
c)we need an all out final showdown to trip our planet into an ice age, USA to pick a fight with China or vice versa, and somehow get russia involved and therefore all the allies. In the process burning up ALL our known resources in the ground.

That should be the end of the start of things getting better........

 

[davess]

ok staying on track..

1a Begin a phased shut down of mainstream coal burning power plants and begin phasing in of vast array solar collectors, wave/tidal energy production and wind turbine farms with the eventual goal of at least 80 to 90% of energy production being from sustainable/renewable resources.

1b Bring back National Service not necessarily in a military run format but make every citizen between 18 and 21 perform 2 years for the nation this work could be in environmental rehabilitation and land care, maintenance or construction of renewable energy assets, major infrastructure development. You link this service to any and all future attempts to collect welfare or to use medicare and to affect their tax bracket, so if little Johnny or Jane chooses not to comply they are penalised. You also incorporate this scheme with Tertiary study so that anyone with the academic ability is able (and this is potentially everyone) to offset this service with some kind of study into an environmental sustainable energy science or engineering.

1c You make tax credits available to employers to increase their workforce and in doing so decrease their use of energy (a kind of employment based carbon credit). For example if an process is currently done my one machine that could be performed by 2 people then the employer who adds staff (decreasing unemployment) is given tax credits (increasing profitability)

1d You add a carpooling credit/discount to registration and/or insurance fees and premiums so that we can have less single occupant vehicles using the roads.

1e You make public transport free for everyone to encourage use.

2a Environmentally it will take decades or centuries to undo the damage done to the environment. There are no quick fixes, however every year we continue to use unsound practices further increases the probability of some kind of global environmental catastrophe caused in part or whole by human action. Realistically no-one on this forum would be alive to see the changes if any but if the goal is our continued survival as a species and our continued development then we will be started down the path.

2b The outright benefits of this scheme would be harder to quantify, it is forseeable the notion of a common goal would have social and cultural benefits to society. The reduction of youth unemployment would have a net benefit to the nations welfare payments. Increased participation in the study or development of sustainable or renewable resources would ultimately lead to breakthroughs in efficient/profitable energy production (and we all like making a profit).

2c Increased employment and workplace participation would be of benefit to the economy and the environment as less energy would be wasted in production or the workplace. Additionally the national welfare bill would be reduced, as potentially would the national healthcare bill.

2d Less congestion of the nation's roads and less use of fossil fuels would have an immediate effect on the quality of air in metropolitan areas, less cars less pollution. Personally for people who contribute to the scheme there could be financial benefit and culturally there would be benefits to society as a whole if we interacted more. Time savings, less cars means less traffic means either more time with family or more time to work or more time to socialise.

2e More public transport participation would equal less congestion of the roads and potentially more or higher employment in the public transport sector.

3a Billions or trillions of dollars, but once the technology is developed and implemented then it can start making a profit, and there is nothing better than utilising a naturally occurring non polluting resource. The sun is free, being able to generate and sell electricity from it would be a very tidy profit indeed. Coal for example has to be mined, refined, stored, transported and burned. Each phase of this operation required infrastructure/equipment that require maintenance and replacement and employees.

3b Any national scheme would have costs involved, again possibly into the billions however these costs would be offset by the reduction of national welfare participation in the 18/21 age group and the increase in productivity especially in major infrastructure development. Potentially there is also the chance to make this scheme profitable as there could be less need for foreign contractor companies like those currently used (ie: Transfield)

3c Tax offsets would be mitigated by decreased welfare participation increased employment and notionally a decreased healthcare bill.

3d Again cost offsets in this program would be mitigated by the reduction of maintenance costs on roads and highways. Notionally there would be a societal benefit that is not measurable in a fiscal sense, but potentially represented as a reduction in the national healthcare bill.

3e Cost of free public transport would be high, however it is interrelated to 3c/d and therefore it's costs would be easy to absorb into the budget at a state or national level. Potentially there could be a tax increase, however this would be offset buy the fact that the majority of the population could use this system. Additionally any tax increase would only be applicable to major population centres with established mass transit systems in place. Remote or rural areas and residents would not be affected as there is little or no public transport infrastructure available to them.

there you go Ray, off the top of my head.

 

[Ray!]

For your efforts, I'll respond to all of your points.

Here is a chart that displays the major green house gas emitters from a user perspective:

Source: Australian Government, National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2006: Accounting for the Kyoto Target, pg 1

It doesn't include the indirect emissions produced by our minerals and energy sector for export products (iron ore, coal, gas, oil etc) ie when used overseas. The following link summarises the value of and issues related to the resources industry:

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sci/AustResources.pdf

To have the biggest impact on Carbon Pollution (love that phrase), you have to dramatically reduce electricity usage (turn your lights, computers, etc off, not just at home, but at work as well) and secondly don't travel or eat farm produce (mainly beef and lamb, as they are the biggest emitters of CO2). You also need to dramatically rein in our resources sector, who are major users of energy. Yes, stop coal fired power stations, but also stop all exports of minerals and resources, as those products contribute to Carbon Pollution, even if not used by us.

Mind you, currently the production of solar panels creates huge pollution issues (the real ones) and solar isn't overly efficient, so the scale of solar panels required to produce the power we need would be vast beyond belief (there are calculation somewhere) and there's no power at night. Similarly for wind, and when the wind don't blow, the power don't flow. That's why for every MW of installed wind power generation, there needs to be an equivalent backup source (usually coal, oil, gas or nuclear) to support the shortfall. Wind power has proven to be very inefficient overall.

Unfortunately, your suggestion doesn't actually come up with any practical, effective and efficient solutions as to what we can really do to replace current energy sources. That's the problem everyone in the world is having, because the feel good solutions just don't work.

Just a few more points.

Someone has to pay for national service and all the things that go with it. Furthermore, if people on national service are going to work in the environmental industry, maintain and construct renewable energy assets and major infrastructure development, what happens to the qualified tradespeople who are already in the relevant industries? Do you think that the unions would support such initiatives. How are these people going to get trained and qualified when it can take an apprentice years to gain similar expertise?

If it only takes one person to do a job, how is it going to be effective and efficient for two people to be assigned to that job? I know that the idea would be taen up with gusto by many, but I'm not sure how anyone can afford this unless the tax credits amount to full pay for the second person.

Car pooling has been tried over the last 20 or more years and always failed miserably. Car pooling simply doesn't meet people's needs in this ever expanding cityscape.

Now we're getting to the nub of the issue. What will be the effect of any Carbon Pollution reduction schemes? Prof Flannery has already publicly stated that any effort made by Australia will be small (negligible) in the overall scheme of things and even if the entire world followed our lead, the effects wouldn't be felt for up to a 1000 years and even then be only a matter of a few degrees (but even that is only guesswork).

So whatever we do, will make no difference at all in saving the planet. Even if we totally shut down Australia, that is stopped everything and I mean everything, the world's emissions at that point in time would only be reduced by 1.4% or thereabouts. And in a year or less would have been wiped out by China's ever expanding industry, where they are building one new coal fired power station about every one or two weeks. Yes, they are decommissioning very old and polluting power stations, but only because they are old and polluting (in the traditional sense of emitting shyt, not CO2).

So now to the cost. If we implement a Carbon Pollution Tax, everything will go up in price, everything. It doesn't matter that the government is promising compensation and thinking about tax breaks, the cost will go up for you and me. As a side note, it makes you wonder that if the government wants to reduce Carbon Pollution, why compensate anyone for producing it, penalise them and make people stop. The Carbon Pollution Tax will effectively be a parallel GST, but able to be increased at any time and applied to anything, as it doesn't have the limitations that were placed on the GST, which makes it much more difficult to increase.

Secondly, the application of the Carbon Pollution Tax (and the proposed resources tax, which hasn't died off), will make our industry uncompetitive in the world market, as they have to pay even more than they do now, for the production of those resources. Many say excellent! That will make Australia the leading nation in addressing the Carbon Pollution problem and the world will come to our door and ask to kiss our arses for being such leading lights in this terrible thing. Africa, South America and other resource rich nations will most certainly come to kiss our arse, as we would have transferred a lucrative and prosperous industry from Australia to their doorstep.

And we can all sit here feeling smug and good about ourselves showing the world how it's done and wait for them to follow. And wait, and wait, and...

Meanwhile, tonight around 8:30, every light and electrical appliance will be turned on to honour Earth Hour.

Cheers

Ray

 

[GUTourer]

Ray I went out and bought another HD plasma TV today for my main bedroom just so I can watch in detail all the muppets turn their lights off when they show it on TV ...........

 

[Ray!]

Ray I went out and bought another HD plasma TV today for my main bedroom just so I can watch in detail all the muppets turn their lights off when they show it on TV ...........

:bigthumb:

Cheers

Ray

 

[moose2367]

I don't follow politics much, rather watch my dog have a ****, but, has the gubbermint said where this bloody carbon tax money is going to be spent or is it just going into the general expenditure and nothing is actually being done for what we are going to be paying for?

oh yeah and


1. What measures should Australia adopt in order to stop global warming? - Nothing, it's a natural cycle of the earth, like i've said before, we've been here for a poofteenth of the earths life and rally have no idea about what it's capable of and doing, in the big scheme of things

2. What will be the effect of those measures on global warming? - Back to whatever is next part of the cycle.

3. What will be the cost be to Australia and Australians by implementing those measures? - Either way, ****loads for us taxpayers, got to fund the pollies super somehow.

 

[Devilyano]

The debate on the Global Warming Insanity post is just going around in circles debating whether global warming is real and man made or not. Let's for a start assume that it is real and man made, like the government and a number here believe, then would those who do believe in it, please answer the following questions:

1. What measures should Australia adopt in order to stop global warming?

2. What will be the effect of those measures on global warming?

3. What will be the cost be to Australia and Australians by implementing those measures?

This is really important for everyone to understand, as the issue of whether global warming/climate change is real, man made or not, is somewhat irrelevant, it's those three questions and the answers that are the most important things to understand and the effects that they will have on you.

Cheers

Ray

OK Ray, here are the simple answers to your questions.

1:- There is nothing Australia can do to stop global warming.

2:- Since there is nothing we can do there will be no effect on global warming.

3:- The cost will be prohibitive to all Australians as the government will spend billions of dollars on useless studies and inquiries trying to find ways to reduce global warming, and in the process, tax the crap out of us to fund those studies and inquiries.

Global warming and cooling is a natural cycle. The planet is not under threat and does not need saving. It can look after it'self. It is only our lifestyle that is under threat. The earth will still be here long after we are gone.

 

[Ray!]

OK Ray, here are the simple answers to your questions.

1:- There is nothing Australia can do to stop global warming.

2:- Since there is nothing we can do there will be no effect on global warming.

3:- The cost will be prohibitive to all Australians as the government will spend billions of dollars on useless studies and inquiries trying to find ways to reduce global warming, and in the process, tax the crap out of us to fund those studies and inquiries.

Global warming and cooling is a natural cycle. The planet is not under threat and does not need saving. It can look after it'self. It is only our lifestyle that is under threat. The earth will still be here long after we are gone.

Every time that you hear someone say that we need to do something about global warming, pass on those thoughts. The more we do it, the sooner sanity will come to all Australians as the cloud of lies, generated by the government's propaganda machine, is lifted.

Cheers

Ray

 

[GUTourer]

I think we should round up all the greenies ... put them in a big vat (Bob Brown first), let them ferment, distill them and run the remanents through alcohol fuelled generators and put back into the power grid.

At least they would be contributing to clean fuel. The residual sludge in the vat could be used for fertiliser. Which is kind of ironic since they are so full of sheit.